IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v43y2025i5d10.1007_s40273-025-01476-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Taxonomy for Assessing Whether HRQoL Value Sets Are Obsolete

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Norman

    (Curtin University)

  • Bram Roudijk

    (EuroQol Research Foundation)

  • Marcel Jonker

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Elly Stolk

    (EuroQol Research Foundation
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Saskia Knies

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Zorginstituut Nederland)

  • Raoh-Fang Pwu

    (Fu Jen Catholic University)

  • Ciaran O’Neill

    (Queen’s University Belfast)

  • Kirsten Howard

    (University of Sydney)

  • Nancy Devlin

    (University of Melbourne)

Abstract

Providing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) value sets to enable estimation of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) is important in facilitating economic evaluation and in supporting reliable decision-making about healthcare. However, as the field matures, many value sets across a range of HRQoL instruments are now old, based on potentially outdated valuation methodologies and preference data from samples that no longer represent the contemporary population. Having a clear strategy for identification and mitigation of obsolescence is important to ensure policy makers retain confidence in their country-specific value sets. In this Current Opinion, we develop a taxonomy of value set obsolescence. We then explore how the different types of obsolescence might be identified and how methodologists might work with local policymakers to address obsolescence and therefore ensure HRQoL instruments remain relevant for use. The taxonomy of obsolescence consists of four main areas: (1) the value set no longer aligns with current normative health technology assessment (HTA) requirements; (2) the methods used to generate it are no longer considered robust or adequately close to best practice; (3) the population composition has moved too far from the characteristics of the sample in which the original value set was derived; and (4) even after controlling for population differences, preferences are likely to have changed since the original data collection. Through identification of the type of obsolescence that applies in a particular setting, we then suggest a range of possible solutions to each, ranging from recommending particular sensitivity analyses, through reweighting of existing data to better account for population differences, to collecting new data for an updated value set. Obsolescence of existing value sets is driven by more than just time since data collection is often a matter of judgment rather than based on a clear definition. The taxonomy presented here provides a tool for assessing whether value sets are obsolete and what the appropriate response to this obsolescence should be. Working closely with local policymakers and involving discussions regarding the ongoing appropriateness of existing value sets should form an important part of future activities. This should include the consideration of updating value sets in contemporary populations using current best-practice methods. However, the benefits of updating value sets have to be balanced against the cost of doing so, including the challenges faced by policymakers when new values sets require a transition to new local decision-making processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Norman & Bram Roudijk & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk & Saskia Knies & Raoh-Fang Pwu & Ciaran O’Neill & Kirsten Howard & Nancy Devlin, 2025. "A Taxonomy for Assessing Whether HRQoL Value Sets Are Obsolete," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 473-481, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40273-025-01476-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01476-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-025-01476-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-025-01476-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon Eckermann & Andrew R. Willan, 2007. "Expected value of information and decision making in HTA," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 195-209, February.
    2. Richard Z. Xie & Erica deFur Malik & Mark T. Linthicum & Jennifer L. Bright, 2021. "Putting Stakeholder Engagement at the Center of Health Economic Modeling for Health Technology Assessment in the United States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 631-638, June.
    3. Cate Bailey & Martin Howell & Rakhee Raghunandan & Kim Dalziel & Kirsten Howard & Brendan Mulhern & Stavros Petrou & Donna Rowen & Amber Salisbury & Rosalie Viney & Emily Lancsar & Nancy Devlin, 2024. "The RETRIEVE Checklist for Studies Reporting the Elicitation of Stated Preferences for Child Health-Related Quality of Life," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 435-446, April.
    4. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    5. A. Pickard, 2015. "Is it Time to Update Societal Value Sets for Preference-Based Measures of Health?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 191-192, March.
    6. Suzy Paisley, 2016. "Identification of Evidence for Key Parameters in Decision-Analytic Models of Cost Effectiveness: A Description of Sources and a Recommended Minimum Search Requirement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 597-608, June.
    7. Powell, Philip A. & Rowen, Donna & Keetharuth, Anju & Mukuria, Clara, 2024. "Understanding UK public views on normative decisions made to value health-related quality of life in children: A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    8. Ilana N. Ackerman & Richard Norman & Ian A. Harris & Kara Cashman & Michelle Lorimer & Stephen Gill & Peter Lewis & Sze-Ee Soh, 2024. "How Does the New Australian EQ-5D-5L Value Set Impact Utility Scores? Analysis of Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 717-724, September.
    9. Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly & Richard Batley, 2018. "Revisiting consistency with random utility maximisation: theory and implications for practical work," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 181-204, March.
    10. Jonathan L. Nazari & A. Simon Pickard & Ning Yan Gu, 2022. "Findings from a Roundtable Discussion with US Stakeholders on Valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-3L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 139-146, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simon Eckermann & Andrew R. Willan, 2016. "Expected Value of Sample Information with Imperfect Implementation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(3), pages 282-283, April.
    2. David O. Meltzer & Ties Hoomans & Jeanette W. Chung & Anirban Basu, 2011. "Minimal Modeling Approaches to Value of Information Analysis for Health Research," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 1-22, November.
    3. Faruque As Sunny & Linlin Fu & Md Sadique Rahman & Zuhui Huang, 2022. "Determinants and Impact of Solar Irrigation Facility (SIF) Adoption: A Case Study in Northern Bangladesh," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Pomi Shahbaz & Shamsheer ul Haq & Azhar Abbas & Zahira Batool & Bader Alhafi Alotaibi & Roshan K. Nayak, 2022. "Adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural Practices through Women Involvement in Decision Making Process: Exploring the Role of Empowerment and Innovativeness," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-16, August.
    5. Fraser, Iain & Balcombe, Kelvin & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2021. "Preference stability in discrete choice experiments. Some evidence using eye-tracking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly & Maria Börjesson, 2020. "A critical appraisal of the use of simple time-money trade-offs for appraisal value of travel time measures," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 1541-1570, June.
    7. Samer A. Kharroubi & Alan Brennan & Mark Strong, 2011. "Estimating Expected Value of Sample Information for Incomplete Data Models Using Bayesian Approximation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 839-852, November.
    8. Powell, Philip A. & Rowen, Donna & Keetharuth, Anju & Mukuria, Clara, 2024. "Understanding UK public views on normative decisions made to value health-related quality of life in children: A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    9. Jonathan Karnon & Jill Carlton & Carolyn Czoski-Murray & Kevin Smith, 2009. "Informing disinvestment through cost-effectiveness modelling," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, March.
    10. Helen Dakin & Sarah Wordsworth, 2013. "Cost‐Minimisation Analysis Versus Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis, Revisited," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 22-34, January.
    11. Claire McKenna & Karl Claxton, 2011. "Addressing Adoption and Research Design Decisions Simultaneously," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 853-865, November.
    12. Antonio Filippin & Marco Mantovani, 2024. "Moral Preferences over Health-Wealth Trade-offs," Working Papers 531, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics.
    13. Nicolas A. Menzies, 2016. "An Efficient Estimator for the Expected Value of Sample Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(3), pages 308-320, April.
    14. Edward J. D. Webb & Paul Kind & David Meads & Adam Martin, 2021. "Does a health crisis change how we value health?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(10), pages 2547-2560, September.
    15. Hancock, Thomas O. & Hess, Stephane & Marley, A.A.J. & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2021. "An accumulation of preference: Two alternative dynamic models for understanding transport choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 250-282.
    16. Mark Strong & Jeremy E. Oakley & Alan Brennan & Penny Breeze, 2015. "Estimating the Expected Value of Sample Information Using the Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 570-583, July.
    17. Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia, 2020. "Loss aversion, reference dependence and diminishing sensitivity in choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    18. David Proudman & Paul Greenberg & Dave Nellesen, 2021. "The Growing Burden of Major Depressive Disorders (MDD): Implications for Researchers and Policy Makers," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 619-625, June.
    19. Hawre Jalal & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Karen M. Kuntz, 2015. "Computing Expected Value of Partial Sample Information from Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Linear Regression Metamodeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 584-595, July.
    20. Stijntje W. Dijk & Eline Krijkamp & Natalia Kunst & Jeremy A. Labrecque & Cary P. Gross & Aradhana Pandit & Chia-Ping Lu & Loes E. Visser & John B. Wong & M. G. Myriam Hunink, 2024. "Making Drug Approval Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty: Cumulative Evidence versus Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(5), pages 512-528, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40273-025-01476-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.